K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether an order issued by Delimitation Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act and published in the Gazette under sub-section (2) is susceptible to challenge under Article 226 in view of the specific bar contained in Article 329 (a) of the Constitution of India, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Petitioner, President of the District Congress Committee, Kannur, has moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 notification dated 31.05.2005 issued by the Delimitation Commission of India under the Delimitation Act and also for a declaration that the delimitation of constituencies in the State of Kerala in particular in the Kannur district is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Writ of mandamus was also sought for seeking a direction to the Delimitation Commission to consider the various objections raised by the petitioner and other people’s representative including its associate members and to delimit the constituencies accordingly.

3. The fourth respondent in the writ petition raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Learned single judge felt that the preliminary objection as well as the merits of the case could be dealt with simultaneously and directed the Election Commission and others to file their statement or counter affidavit in the writ petition. Election Commissioner is aggrieved by non consideration of the preliminary objection at the threshold and has filed W.A.No.1495 of 2005. When the writ appeal came up for hearing we have called for the writ petition also for final hearing to consider the question of maintainability of the petition.

4. Petitioner is stated to be the President of the District Congress Committee, Kannur and he is also a voter in Kannur Constituency, Kannur district. Petitioner submits even though various objections were raised before the Delimitation Commission in respect of the delimitation of the Kannur Assembly Constituency, Commission has rejected those suggestions and objections and published the notification dated 31.5.2005 in a most unscientific manner without any application of mind to the issues involved. Power of the delimitation, it is alleged, has been abused to achieve an oblique and ulterior motive. Respondents refuted the various allegation raised against the Delimitation Commission and submitted that all the procedural formalities were complied with by the Commission and it took a conscious decision while delimiting the constituencies. Further it was pointed out that the Delimitation Commission was constituted in terms of the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 33 of 2002, consisting of former Judge of the Supreme Court as its Chairperson and the allegation raised against the Commission is totally baseless. Fourth respondent, Chief Electoral Officer and Secretary to Government therefore filed I.A.No.10110 of 2005 to recall the order dated 5.7.2005 passed by the learned single judge to the extent of directing him to file statement on merits and to hear the maintainability of the writ petition.

5. Sri. Murali Purushothaman, counsel appearing for the Chief Electoral Officer submitted that the Delimitation Commission of India has already issued the notification dated 31.5.2005 under Section 10(1) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 delimiting the assembly constituencies in the State of Kerala. Section 10(2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 provides that upon publication in the Gazette of India, every order of the Delimitation Commission delimiting constituencies shall have the force of law and that order cannot be called in question in any court in view of the express bar of judicial review under Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India. Counsel placed considerable reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the apex court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitatio